This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Afghanistan is in a totally different league to Iran. Afghanistan didn't have much of anything but light infantry in technicals (and that was still enough!) Iran is an industrialized country. They know how to fight.
If the goal is just killing lots of Iranians, there's a simple tool for that: H-bombs. Killing people is not sufficient to achieve US strategic goals, which are more complex than just destruction. The US wants some kind of positive regime change - this strategy has achieved the reverse. The US wanted security of energy markets and to retain control of the seas. The petrodollar is now under attack by Iran's control of the straits of Hormuz.
You seem to think the war is all but won. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Iran's capability to bombard US bases is not 'way down'. The US has been evacuating its in-air refuelling aircraft further away after Iran keeps striking them with missiles deep into Saudi Arabia. A meagre sortie rate from a couple of carrier groups and a handful of strategic bombers is not sufficient to win this war. 44 B-1s at 47% readiness are not going to do much.
The much-vaunted US navy couldn't secure the Red Sea against the Houthis after a whole year of escort operations and bombing, how the hell are they supposed to secure the straits of Hormuz? They're staying well away from the straits because they're not complete fools.
The whole concept of this war is unfathomably dumb. Even people like Bolton are publicly questioning war with Iran. Do you have any idea how off the rails this has gone if the hawk's hawk, the warmonger's warmonger who's been agitating for this war for decades is criticizing the strategy? The plan was clearly 'quick war', they never anticipated that they'd need to bring in marines or extra THAAD from Korea. They are improvising because the strategy has already failed.
The US took Iraq also (including defeating the Republican Guard), and they were supposedly a juggernaut as well.
There are lots of tools for that. Daisy cutters, thermobaric weapons, chemical weapons. The former two aren't even technically WMDs. Bombing water infrastructure, cutting off food supplies. Just shooting them. The world's militaries have been killing people wholesale since long before Edward Teller was a gleam in his father's eye. Atomic bombs are special in only two ways -- you can do the same destruction in far fewer bombs, and the persistent radioactive effects.
Iran struck them once. That Iran's capability to bombard is down doesn't mean it's zero.
The Houthis were being supplied from Iran.
Perhaps it just means Bolton is a reverse weather vane.
Five weeks to a few months is what the administration has been saying. They haven't been too consistent but we haven't even reached the shortest timeframe.
Iraq was an Arab country, they didn't make weapons and never showed much proficiency in fighting. They just relied on Soviet weapons, US assistance in their unsuccessful war with Iran, who was fighting alone. Iraq was also strategically unprepared for the US invasion, they hadn't built up their military specifically over decades to deal with America.
Consider also that the Iraqis are the ones who quickly collapsed to ISIS and had to be bailed out by the US and Iran.
Iran is bigger, smarter and stronger with much more defensible terrain and decades of preparation.
They just fired off their big alpha strike at the start and have since switched to a more sustainable firing pattern. Same with the US. The US launched its big alpha strike at the start and since then sortie rates have greatly fallen.
And now the challenge is fighting Iran... I don't see how that supports your case.
What, so he was calling for war for the last 30 years and it was dumb then but suddenly it's smart now, when he starts expressing doubts publicly? What's the mechanic here? I think 'reverse weather vane' is an idea that sounds a lot more clever than it actually is.
Iraq fought Iran to a stalemate in the Iran/Iraq war (which Iraq started). They fell to ISIS after the US had destroyed their military and government the first time. The idea that Iran has a far superior warfighting ability than Iraq under Saddam is not supported.
Are you the Iran Propaganda Minister?
The point is the US could blow up the Houthi's missiles and they would just get resupply from untouched capacity in Iran. Iran itself doesn't have that option.
There's clearly a huge gulf between our information sources on this war. You and I are not commentating on the same conflict, at a fundamental level. Maybe you're listening to the mainstream, 'approved' sources. I too saw a little bit of them. On day 1 they were clearly expecting some kind of mass revolution that overthrows the regime. They were clearly delusional. These are the same people who just recycle atrocity propaganda and 'Israeli government sources confirm' or 'US military announces' as news.
If the war was going well, would the Trump administration really be unsanctioning Iranian oil? They're flailing around like a drowning man.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link